Peterson, Harris, etc....

Raoul said:
One off appearances that tidily fit into a tweet gif collage don't make for routine acceptance.
Click to expand...

1. Peterson has been interviewed countless times by non-conservative outfits and his book Weiss has a column at the liberal paper of record. Shapiro received a glowing review from the same paper. Harris semi-regularly appears on Maher.

2. They aren't entitled to a space let alone routine appearances.
I'm assuming that you think that in marginalising brave conservatives like this lot you think the MSM is silencing popular opinion.
Why doesn't the NYT have a single Trump supporter in their columnists? Why doesn't the NYT have a single Bernie supporter in their columnists? Why is there not a single advocate for Medicare-for-all at the NYT? Why don't Weiss et al speak about this gross blackout of mainstream American voices at their workplace, the liberal paper of record?
 
berbatrick said:
1. Peterson has been interviewed countless times by non-conservative outfits and his book Weiss has a column at the liberal paper of record. Shapiro received a glowing review from the same paper. Harris semi-regularly appears on Maher.

2. They aren't entitled to a space let alone routine appearances.
I'm assuming that you think that in marginalising brave conservatives like this lot you think the MSM is silencing popular opinion.
Why doesn't the NYT have a single Trump supporter in their columnists? Why doesn't the NYT have a single Bernie supporter in their columnists? Why is there not a single advocate for Medicare-for-all at the NYT? Why don't Weiss et al speak about this gross blackout of mainstream American voices at their workplace, the liberal paper of record?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say he has been interviewed countless times. He has made it to the MSM by way of his recent juggernaut.

As for the Times, they obviously have an editorial slant towards standard mainstream liberal politics (as opposed to ultra-left Bernie fans or nutty Trump supporters).
 
Raoul said:
As for the Times, they obviously have an editorial slant towards standard mainstream liberal politics (as opposed to ultra-left Bernie fans or nutty Trump supporters).
Click to expand...

So it legitimate to exercise editorial discretion against politics you personally find nutty, but when people with certain political views aren't getting exactly the level of coverage you want them to, that is a threat to free speech.

Honestly, are you trolling or do you not see the inconsistency?

edit - I was unaware that Ross Douthat, Bret Stephens, and Bari Weiss are liberals.
 
berbatrick said:
So it legitimate to exercise editorial discretion against politics you personally find nutty, but when people with certain political views aren't getting exactly the level of coverage you want them to, that is a threat to free speech.

Honestly, are you trolling or do you not see the inconsistency?
Click to expand...

I generally find people on both sides of political extremes irrational and nutty. Real progress happens when people move towards the middle and compromise. As for the Times, they should be covering a much broader swath of ideas which is why the Weiss piece is a good sign.
 
Raoul said:
I generally find people on both sides of political extremes irrational and nutty. Real progress happens when people move towards the middle and compromise. As for the Times, they should be covering a much broader swath of ideas which is why the Weiss piece is a good sign.
Click to expand...

That's your opinion and is irrelevant to what we were discussing.

The Weiss piece focuses on people who already have a platform; people whose politics she agrees with. She isn't calling for the Times to hire a single leftist or a Trump supporter.
She is transparently using the facade of free speech and claiming victimhood to amplify views she agrees with.
 
berbatrick said:
That's your opinion and is irrelevant to what we were discussing.

The Weiss piece focuses on people who already have a platform; people whose politics she agrees with. She isn't calling for the Times to hire a single leftist or a Trump supporter.
She is transparently using the facade of free speech and claiming victimhood to amplify views she agrees with.
Click to expand...

Her piece isn't just about getting booked on TV shows. Its about a much broader problem of not having a wider swath of ideas being discussed in society and how this particular group (which she has odiously labeled the intellectual dark web) are part of that equation.
 
Raoul said:
I generally find people on both sides of political extremes irrational and nutty. Real progress happens when people move towards the middle and compromise. As for the Times, they should be covering a much broader swath of ideas which is why the Weiss piece is a good sign.
Click to expand...
I’d stay out of the Corbyn thread then. :lol:
 
Raoul said:
Her piece isn't just about getting booked on TV shows. Its about a much broader problem of not having a wider swath of ideas being discussed in society and how this particular group (which she has odiously labeled the intellectual dark web) are part of that equation.
Click to expand...

Weiss hasn't engaged with research showing that college students aren't a threat to free speech.

She hasn't mentioned things like the BDS law or ag-gag or HLP v Holder.

She hasn't mentioned the problem of a lack of Trump supporters or leftists in the NYT.

She hasn't talked about the effect that Republicans have on free speech with their rulings on employer rights.

She has advocated for professors to lose their jobs because she disagreed with the person they invited to campus.

She has chosen as victims of thought policing, people with large platforms on non-mainstream media and wide access to mainstream media, whose politics are compatible with hers.


This is a farce. The whole discussion is a farce.
 
Raoul said:
The difference (imo) between MSM and social media is that the latter tends to compartmentalize information into many disperate pieces whereas the MSM tends to galvanize and coagulate it between one (or two) prominent orthodox narratives that are easily digestible for most viewers. This is why social media narratives have to rise up to the MSM level in order to gain mass appeal.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure being easily digestible for viewers is that desirable. Particularly with the slant MSM adds.
 
Cheesy said:
Fair point. I think this is a problem in general - I have no wish to desire or censor someone like Shapiro, but at the same time he is regularly paraded as some sort of expert whose opinion must be respected when in reality he's mostly just a man with some very biased and one-sided opinions. We see this in the UK too - regularly voices are given to celebrity-types who aren't really experts on any area of politics but just people who're well-known and get platforms to espouse ill-informed views based on their own personal feelings.

It's all well and good to say that they should be debated for their opinions to be shut down/rebuked, but in debates sometimes superior speakers can look more coherent than they actually are through certain debating tactics they use, and often facts can be skewered to suit their own agenda without journalists calling them out on it. And that's not to say Shapiro should be automatically shut down as a voice - at the same time though I'm not sure what he's really done to be regarded as a authoritative or useful voice on political matters, unless I've missed something, apart from managing to become popular. Which shouldn't be an automatic entry barrier unless we're willing to argue genuinely reprehensible people should get a voice because their views were once popular.
Click to expand...

That's definitely a thought provoking point. One "flaw" you could say in open debate and discussion would be a well spoken person with corrupt ideas is dangerous especially if the only counter voice is much less well spoken.
The only defense to that in the long run is an educated, reasonable and thoughtful population imo.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
That's definitely a thought provoking point. One "flaw" you could say in open debate and discussion would be a well spoken person with corrupt ideas is dangerous especially if the only counter voice is much less well spoken.
The only defense to that in the long run is an educated, reasonable and thoughtful population imo.
Click to expand...

Definitely. It's been shown throughout history - there have been plenty of flawed and tyrannical figures who have in part risen to prominence because of their own personal speaking ability and charisma. The ideas they espouse aren't necessarily rejected even if they're abhorrent because they appeal to the general populous.

Now, of course, that doesn't mean we should be censoring every voice we personally find dangerous or problematic. Hence Shapiro shouldn't be denied a platform to express his own thoughts, nor is he necessarily some tyrannical madman. But at the same time those who disagree with him shouldn't necessarily think his views will automatically be rejected or proven wrong in open, honest debate, because facts within debates can often be subjective and/or skewed, and even when someone is proven wrong, someone who's sympathetic to them may reject the idea they're wrong because they sympathise or empathise with them anyway. The idea that the 'correct' side automatically rises to the fore in any debate is fairly flawed and simplistic, I think. And, of course, these debates should still exist, but we shouldn't over-emphasise certain voices just to prove them wrong, lest we end up causing the opposite to happen.
 
It always amazes me how seamlessly the oppressors have adopted language of the oppressed. And how they have rebranded the same old racism, bigotry, xenophobia, misogyny and imperialism as radically new ideas. Bari Weiss and her ilk have weekly columns at papers like NY Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Atlantic, etc and are constantly on nationally syndicated television programs yet constantly complain about being "silenced".
 
Keeps It tidy said:
It always amazes me how seamlessly the oppressors have adopted language of the oppressed. And how they have rebranded the same old racism, bigotry, xenophobia, misogyny and imperialism as radically new ideas. Bari Weiss and her ilk have weekly columns at papers like NY Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Atlantic, etc and are constantly on nationally syndicated television programs yet constantly complain about being "silenced".
Click to expand...

Who are the oppressors ? The liberal media led by the NY Times ?
 
Raoul said:
Who are the oppressors ? The liberal media led by the NY Times ?
Click to expand...

The people who ponder whether woman who have abortions should be hanged, the people who are trying to push debunked race science, people who say things like
"the Palestinian Arab population is rotten to the core". You know the type of people Bari Weiss usually defends in her columns?
 
Keeps It tidy said:
The people who ponder whether woman who have abortions should be hanged, the people who are trying to push debunked race science, people who say things like
"the Palestinian Arab population is rotten to the core". You know the type of people Bari Weiss usually defends in her columns?
Click to expand...

Sounds like you are selectively cherry picking random comments people made ages ago to vilify a random group of pundits, some of whom don't have anything to do with one another.
 
Petersen at the end there talking about women in the west "a little gratitude might be in order"

That's gonna go down well :lol:
 
Raoul said:
Its about time he branched out from Fox.
Click to expand...

This is incredible. He was interviewed on C4 in the UK, MSNBC and Fox, CBC and various other Canadian outlets. Glowing reviews in the Guardian, NYT, etc. All this for a guy who has zero functional knowledge of postmodernism and evolutionary biology but talks like an expert on both subjects.

Do people know who David Reich and Sarah Tishkoff, or JD Hamilton and Waddington, or even Morgan and Khorana are? No. We know Charles Murray and JBP.
Do people know what Derrida or Lyotard or Foucalt wrote? No. We know what William Lind and JBP have interpreted from their writings.
 
Raoul said:
I generally find people on both sides of political extremes irrational and nutty. Real progress happens when people move towards the middle and compromise. As for the Times, they should be covering a much broader swath of ideas which is why the Weiss piece is a good sign.
Click to expand...

:lol:

1500663639525


This is so intellectually groundless though. Who defines the middle? The only way you can define it is by observing the political beliefs that are actually held by the population at a given time and and so you reduce your politics to utter relativism.
 
Untied said:
:lol:

1500663639525


This is so intellectually groundless though. Who defines the middle? The only way you can define it is by observing the political beliefs that are actually held by the population at a given time and and so you reduce your politics to utter relativism.
Click to expand...

There is no we in the debate. Each person has to define their own political center based on their own perceptions of the the circumstances they want to live in. The cartoon above could be easily inverted by the people on the left wanting tradition, law, and order and the people on the right wanting communism and anarchy. Both that and example above would be extremely farcical because they both attempt to generalize and stereotype perceptions of left and right.
 
Raoul said:
I'm not for denying any of the people you cited. Let them all speak.
Click to expand...

They are speaking - to science outlets and college educational videos. After all, they have a lot more expertise in fields where non-exerts like Shapiro and Murray and JBP operate. And yet they are barely talked about in mainstream media.

For an analogy, would you rather hear a biologist or a climate scientist be cited in news stories about climate change? And when that hypothetical biologist disagrees with the climate scientist, do you think it is "good" that the biologist is getting mainstream exposure?
You are in favour of editorial discretion in political views to the extent that you are fine that the views of the elected US president and the most popular US politician aren't represented in the paper of record. I don't see you complaining that Greenwald has lost his MSNBC slots.
So obviously neither popularity or diversity is the criteria by which you think access should be granted. Being for editorial discretion against views you find crazy, why do you think charlatans and non-experts deserve mainstream space?
 
berbatrick said:
They are speaking - to science outlets and college educational videos. After all, they have a lot more expertise in fields where non-exerts like Shapiro and Murray and JBP operate. And yet they are barely talked about in mainstream media.

For an analogy, would you rather hear a biologist or a climate scientist be cited in news stories about climate change? And when that hypothetical biologist disagrees with the climate scientist, do you think it is "good" that the biologist is getting mainstream exposure?
You are in favour of editorial discretion in political views to the extent that you are fine that the views of the elected US president and the most popular US politician aren't represented in the paper of record. I don't see you complaining that Greenwald has lost his MSNBC slots.
So obviously neither popularity or diversity is the criteria by which you think access should be granted. Being for editorial discretion against views you find crazy, why do you think charlatans and non-experts deserve mainstream space?
Click to expand...

You're complicating simplicity here. I want the likes of Greenwald and Harris (and their respective posses) to be on equal footing on a grander stage beyond the compartmentalized muppet show that is social media. They should be on national TV so ordinary people who don't spend their lives online are exposed to their views.
 
Raoul said:
You're complicating simplicity here. I want the likes of Greenwald and Harris (and their respective posses) to be on equal footing on a grander stage beyond the compartmentalized muppet show that is social media. They should be on national TV so ordinary people who don't spend their lives online are exposed to their views.
Click to expand...

And why is that? What good is that?
 
Raoul said:
Broader debate about ideas in contemporary society.
Click to expand...

Well I don't personally believe all opinions are worthy of a platform.

Beyond my own personal feelings on these people - alot of this is boring as feck to the average person (Harris as an example could put me to sleep). There's no surprise it's not on mainstream television.
 
Minimalist said:
Well I don't personally believe all opinions are worthy of a platform.

Beyond my own personal feelings on these people - alot of this is boring as feck to the average person (Harris as an example could put me to sleep). There's no surprise it's not on mainstream television.
Click to expand...

I don't think all opinions are worthy of a platform either, but in the current situation, the ideas we view as orthodox are too narrow. We need a broader swath of ideas from disparate sources to challenge the orthodoxy.

As for it being boring - there's a reason for that. The general public are spoonfed a very narrow, dumbed down debate between left and right when they should be introduced to a set of competing ideas instead.
 
PedroMendez said:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/opinion/sunday/genetics-race.html
Click to expand...

That is exactly what I'm referring to - he is probably the leading human geneticist and after years of original research he got 1 NYT article (and a followup). Sarah Tishkoff who is (IMO) in terms of visibility in human genetics his only equal hasn't got a single one.
All the other names I've mentioned who use genetics in their arguments have got much more, and moreover they even claim to speak for the field at times.
 
Raoul said:
I don't think all opinions are worthy of a platform either, but in the current situation, the ideas we view as orthodox are too narrow. We need a broader swath of ideas from disparate sources to challenge the orthodoxy.

As for it being boring - there's a reason for that. The general public are spoonfed a very narrow, dumbed down debate between left and right when they should be introduced to a set of competing ideas instead.
Click to expand...

Is there money in that?

I feel like we're talking about some alternative reality now.
 
Minimalist said:
Is there money in that?

I feel like we're talking about some alternative reality now.
Click to expand...

If you build it, they will come.

Channels like CNN have been doing "town hall" debates for decades, but the scope is generally too narrow and related to elections or gun control. They should instead branch out a bit into the Intelligence Squared style debates and incorporate more controversial speakers who challenge the existing status quo.
 
Raoul said:
I don't think all opinions are worthy of a platform either, but in the current situation, the ideas we view as orthodox are too narrow. We need a broader swath of ideas from disparate sources to challenge the orthodoxy.
.
Click to expand...

Why are you in favour of this challenge to orthodoxy (orthodoxies like women and men can work in the same workplace, racial differences in traits are either overshadowed by individual differences or minor, postmodernism is a philosophical reaction to modernism rather than a West-destroying conspiracy theory, both hierarchy and cooperation can explain human behaviour) coming from people like Murray and JBP rather than people who know what they're talking about?

And don't you think it's suspicious that when Bari Weiss was listing her renegades, she didn't pick, for example, any leftist professor (examples here) who got fired or denied tenure? How does that article have credibility given her overt selection of interviewees?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.